While I have previous stated (in so many words) that I had no desire to debate one who is so obviously biased (yes, imo, you are a zealot), I am intrigued with your recommendation that those following this thread should read THE CAT FROM HUE by John Laurence. IN PART AND TO A VERY LIMITED DEGREE, I support your principle position in the message to which I'm responding and based upon Laurence's book (generally speaking), I believe he might as well.
Coincidently, I am still in the process of reading Laurence's very excellent book and would heartily recommend it to anyone seeking a very well written account of the war as Laurence experienced and reported it. Heretofore, I've always regarded Herr's DISPATCHES as being the most realistic and well written account of the war. Even though I'm not through with Laurence's book, I believe it will soon replace DISPATCHES as my favorite account based upon my own experiences. Below is an excerpt from page 401 of the book regarding an evening Laurence spent in Saigon May, 1966. I am presenting this excerpt not for the purpose of proving you incorrect regarding your BASIC PREMISE but to take exception to a single statement, your concluding (and challenging) point to the individual to whom you were responding in your post, to wit:
You wrote:
""As far as today's mainstream "news," it's a "for profit" business NOW. The days of the Fred Frendlies and Roone Arlidges ARE PAST. It's all about telling the public what the public wants to hear so that readership or viewership and ADVERTISING REVENUES ARE MAXIMIZED."" [sic: emphasis by capitalization added]
Cnyndwllr, the real point for my response is that if you take Laurence's writing as gospel, he and Sam Castan, LOOK magazine reporter, said virtually the same thing about reporting from Vietnam in 1966 that you suggest is despicable and damning and now coming out of Iraq, i.e., Bush's war. A major point they make is that, then as now, reporting by the media is FOR PROFIT as both Laurence and Castan clearly indicate and no more sacrosanct in 1966 then it is now. Laurence is, in my opinion, a realist. A descriptive adjective not normally applied to zealots. Regardless, the following is the exchange Laurence had with Sam Castan as written in the book you referenced. By the way, Castan, died at An Khe a few days after sharing this evening with Laurence. The subject discussed was addressed in the book as having to do with "truth in war reporting."
>>'Everything's distorted, ' he said [sic: Sam Castan]. 'We're not reporting things the way they really are. The PIOs [sic: military slang for Public Information Officers] distort things because they're trying to cover up the Army's mistakes. They make it sound like we win every battle. And we don't. It's the old cover-your-ass syndrome. Who do they think they're kidding?'
>>I agreed [Author: Laurence]. 'It isn't just that they put on a show for us. They pass the stuff up the line to the Pentagon. I think some of these guys actually believe their own propaganda.'
>>'But we're as bad as they are,' Sam said. 'We exaggerate the violence as much as they play it down. Cause it sells copy. Whenever there's a conflict between making money and real honesty, money wins. It doesn't matter whether you saw something firsthand or whether you're rewriting somebody else's stuff. You exaggerate. Make it more dramatic.'
>>"True, I said. 'But part of that is because we have to condense everything into a nice neat little story. Radio and TV especially. But also the wires and the papers. It's easy to use phrases like "waves of B-52 bombers" and "struck dozens of enemy targets" because they're shorter, simpler.'
>>'They're clichés, that's what they are. The stuff the wires and papers and networks send out is riddled with clichés. "Winning hearts and minds," I mean, really, man. The whole war is becoming a cliché.'
[SKIP, SKIP--irrelevant color regarding food and drink]
>>'Everything's too cozy between the PIOs and the press,' he said, 'like we're all part of the same organization. A year or two ago it was different. American honor wasn't at stake. It was more adversarial, but honest. Now there's a tendency to conceal mistakes, to deny that we ever lose a battle. It saves face. We're as bad as they are. Really. None of us are being responsible in our reporting.' |
